Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Reinforced Internal-External Knowledge Synergistic Reasoning for Efficient Adaptive Search Agent

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A language-model search agent can learn to know what it knows: answer from memory first and search only when memory is insufficient, cutting searches by a third to a half while improving accuracy.

desk verdict A sensible RL recipe for teaching search agents when to skip retrieval, with solid ablations, but the headline gains are measured on probe-defined subsets and need full-benchmark validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07596 v1 pith:FWLZTNUB submitted 2025-05-12 cs.CL cs.AI

Ziyang Huang , Xiaowei Yuan , Yiming Ju , Jun Zhao , Kang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationreinforcementlearningknowledgeboundaryadaptiveretrievalsearchagentknowledge-intensivequestionansweringinternalexternal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that reinforcement learning can teach a language-model search agent where its own knowledge stops, so the agent answers from memory when it can and calls the search engine only when it cannot. The proposed agent, IKEA, is trained with a reward that credits a correct answer, gives a bonus for answering with no retrieval, and adds a small penalty when a wrong answer was not checked against external sources. Training data is deliberately half questions the probing model can already answer and half it cannot, keeping both behaviors visible during exploration. Across single-hop and multi-hop knowledge QA benchmarks, IKEA reports better exact-match accuracy than retrieval-always and retrieval-never baselines while using roughly a third to a half fewer searches. If the results hold, adaptive retrieval timing does not need external classifiers or hand-designed policies: a reward signal alone can make the agent internalize the boundary between internal and external knowledge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the knowledge-boundary aware reward function, $R = r_{ans} + r_{kb}$ with a -1 format penalty: $r_{ans}$ is 1 for an exact match and 0 otherwise, while $r_{kb}$ is $r_{kb}^{+}(1 - RT/RT_{max})$ when the answer is correct and retrieval count $RT$ is reduced, 0 for a wrong answer with no search, and $r_{kb}^{-}$ for a wrong answer that did search. Paired with it is the 1:1 easy/hard training set, where easy questions are those a same-family model answers correctly in at least one of several sampled chain-of-thought rollouts and hard questions are the rest. Together they give the group-relative policy optimization process a reward landscape in which internal knowledge is the cheap path to the correct answer and external search is the useful path only when internal knowledge fails; the ablations show that removing either the positive bonus or the negative penalty collapses the trained behavior into always-retrieve or never-retrieve.

What would settle it

Run the fully trained IKEA agent and the retrieval-always reinforcement-learning baseline on the complete, unfiltered versions of the four evaluation benchmarks, without any easy/hard splitting, and compare exact-match accuracy and mean retrieval counts over the whole test set. If the retrieval reduction approaches zero or accuracy falls below the baseline on the unfiltered sets, the reported efficiency gain is an artifact of the probe-built subsets rather than evidence of a learned knowledge boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that retrieval timing in a knowledge-intensive agent is a learnable policy, not a separate module: the model can discover its own knowledge boundary from reward alone. IKEA's reward is the exact-match answer reward plus a knowledge-boundary reward that decreases linearly with retrieval count when the answer is correct, is zero for a wrong answer with no retrieval, and is a small negative value for a wrong answer that did involve retrieval, with a total penalty of -1 for format violations. The training set is built by probing the base model with chain-of-thought exemplars, labeling a question easy if any sampled rollout yields the correct answer and hard otherwise, and mixing the two classes 1:1. The authors report that the trained agent uses about one search per easy question and slightly more on hard questions, beats the always-retrieve and never-retrieve reinforcement-learning baselines on exact match, and transfers to two out-of-distribution datasets. They interpret this as the model learning three behaviors at once: dividing queries into known and unknown, recalling internal knowledge inside the boundary, and searching outside it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the probing procedure that labels a question 'easy' when a same-family model happens to answer it correctly in at least one of several chain-of-thought samples reliably marks the true boundary of what the trained agent knows; if that probe is noisy, the accuracy gains and retrieval reductions measured on the probe-built easy/hard subsets may be an artifact of subset selection rather than a property of the trained agent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the paper's easy/hard test splits, IKEA beats the always-retrieve search-agent baseline by 2.5-5.5 exact-match points while using 35-50 percent fewer searches, consistently across 3B and 7B models.
  • The learned retrieval-timing behavior transfers to two out-of-distribution datasets, so the agent appears to acquire a general policy rather than memorizing when each benchmark wants a search.
  • Ablating the positive knowledge-boundary bonus makes the model over-retrieve, and ablating the negative penalty makes it under-retrieve; both components are needed for the balanced behavior.
  • Training on an all-easy dataset collapses retrieval and harms hard questions, while an all-hard dataset inflates retrieval and harms easy questions; the 1:1 mix is required for synergistic internal-external use.
  • Base and instruction-tuned models converge to similar reward and retrieval profiles, indicating the behavior can be learned without an instruction-tuned cold start.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same reward shape could be transferred to other tool-use settings where the model can answer from memory, such as code generation with API lookups or tabular QA with database calls; testing it there would show whether the learned 'search only when needed' policy is a general control principle or specific to text retrieval.
  • Because the reported retrieval counts are measured on probe-labeled easy and hard subsets, a natural extension is to evaluate on unfiltered benchmarks; the paper's own setup does not show how the agent's learned threshold behaves on questions the probe never classified.
  • The probe uses a model from the same family to build training labels, so an informative robustness check would be to rebuild the easy/hard dataset with a weaker and a stronger probe model and see whether the agent's boundary shifts accordingly.
  • The reward's success suggests that explicit know/unknown classifiers may be unnecessary for adaptive retrieval; this connects to the broader question of whether calibration of self-knowledge can be shaped purely through reinforcement learning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes IKEA, a reinforcement-learning-based search agent that aims to decide when to answer from parametric knowledge and when to retrieve external knowledge. The method has three components: an agent prompt template that encourages internal-knowledge recall before searching; a knowledge-boundary aware reward function (Eqs. 3-4) that rewards correct answers, penalizes unnecessary retrievals on easy questions, and rewards retrieval on hard questions; and a training dataset balanced 1:1 between probe-defined easy and hard questions. Experiments on NQ, PopQA, HotpotQA, and 2Wiki, split into easy and hard subsets, report exact match and retrieval counts against direct, RAG, adaptive-RAG, and RL search baselines. The central claim is that IKEA significantly outperforms baselines, especially Search-R1, while substantially reducing retrieval frequency and generalizing out-of-distribution.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, IKEA is a practically useful training recipe for RL search agents: it is simple, it is released with code, and the ablations in Section 5 give informative evidence that both the reward shape and the easy/hard data balance matter. The training curves in Figure 2 are consistent with the intended mechanism of initially exploring retrieval and later pruning it. However, the evaluation currently has a load-bearing circularity: the same probing procedure that labels training data also constructs the test subsets, and the probe is run on a model from the same family as the trained agents. In addition, no error bars or significance tests are reported, while the abstract and Section 4.2 claim 'significantly' better performance. The contribution is therefore promising but not yet verified at the level claimed; the gap can be closed by full-benchmark evaluation and uncertainty quantification.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 and Appendix B] The test sets are constructed with the same probing procedure used to label the training data (Section 3.2), and the probe is Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct, a model from the same family as the trained agents. Table 1 therefore reports EM and RT averaged over subsets selected to align with the training signal; the headline gains over Search-R1 (e.g., +2.51 EM and -34.76% RT for IKEA-3B, +5.05 EM and -50.81% RT for IKEA-7B) may be artifacts of that selection rather than properties of the trained policy on the underlying benchmarks. Please report results on the full NQ, PopQA, HotpotQA, and 2Wiki test sets, and if the easy/hard split is retained, construct it with an independent probe and verify label stability across sampling seeds and model checkpoints.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (4), and Table 1] The definition of Qeasy as 'the correct answer is obtained at least once' over N sampled trials is a weak and noisy criterion: a question answered correctly in only one of, say, eight trials is still treated as internal knowledge for reward shaping and later aggregated into the Easy test subset. The probe is also never recalibrated on the trained IKEA agent, and it is used to label questions for 7B and base models even though it is run on 3B-Instruct. Please report the probe's success-rate distribution, show how the easy/hard labels depend on N, and test whether the trained agents' retrieval behavior actually correlates with probe difficulty rather than with surface-level properties of the questions.
  3. [Checklist item 7 and Table 1] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, and the authors explicitly state that computational cost prevented repeated runs. On 512-example subsets, EM differences of 2-5 points are plausibly within sampling noise, yet the abstract and Section 4.2 repeatedly use 'significantly outperforms' and 'significantly reduces' without statistical support. Report bootstrap confidence intervals on the EM/RT differences or full-benchmark results, and temper the language to match the evidence actually provided.
  4. [§7 and Appendix D] The reward parameters (rkb+ = 0.6, rkb- = 0.05, RTmax = 3) are acknowledged in Section 7 to potentially require grid searching, but no sensitivity analysis is provided. The ablation in Table 2 removes rkb or rkb- entirely but never varies their magnitudes or RTmax. Since the paper's central claim is that the knowledge-boundary aware reward is responsible for the retrieval reduction, the reader cannot tell whether the effect is robust across the plausible parameter range. Please add a parameter sweep or at least a small robustness study over rkb+, rkb-, and RTmax.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are several typos that should be fixed: 'indentify' in the abstract, 'trainign' in the captions of Figures 2-4, 'IEKA' in the Section 3.2 heading, and 'w/orkb' in Table 2.
  2. [Table 1] The Search-R1-Zero row reports no RT and uses a '***' footnote saying the checkpoint might be over-optimized; this should be explained directly in the table caption or main text so the reader knows why that baseline is excluded from the RT comparison.
  3. [§4.1 and Appendix D] The definition of 'valid searches' (RT) is not precise. Please specify whether malformed search actions, searches that return no documents, and repeated searches for the same query count toward RT, and state whether the reported numbers include only successful environment interactions.
  4. [Appendix D] The corpus is described only as 'wikipedia2018' and the retriever as 'e5-base'; for reproducibility, please give the exact corpus version, the exact retriever checkpoint (e.g., e5-base-v2), and any preprocessing or filtering applied to retrieved documents.
  5. [Checklist and GitHub repository] The paper states that data and code are provided in supplementary materials and gives a GitHub URL in the header, but no license is mentioned. Please add a license for the released code and data.
  6. [References] Reference [46] contains a typo ('facutality'), and some references are missing venue or year information (e.g., [3]); a final proofreading pass of the reference list is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IKEA's reported gains are empirical RL outcomes; the probe-based easy/hard splits are a validity limitation, not a derivation loop.

full rationale

The central derivation is a GRPO/PPO RL loop with a hand-specified reward (Eq. 3-4) and a probe-constructed training set (Section 3.2); the reported EM and RT numbers in Table 1 are measured outcomes, not quantities equivalent to the reward or probe by construction. The same probing procedure that labels Qeasy/Qhard for training is reused to build the easy/hard test subsets (Section 4.1: 'Test sets (easy and hard subsets) were constructed like the training set (Section 3.2)'; Appendix B), so the evaluation distribution is aligned with the training construction. This is a real external-validity limitation, and Section 7 concedes that the reward parameters 'might require grid searching', but it does not make the accuracy-per-search comparison circular: IKEA's retrieval decisions and exact matches are not equal to the probe labels, baselines are scored on the same subsets, and the reward does not observe the easy/hard label at rollout. No load-bearing self-citation chain exists; the only overlapping-author reference ([18], knowledge conflicts) is background, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Thus no step satisfies the bar of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-chosen reward parameters (r_kb+, r_kb-, RT_max), a model-probing definition of question difficulty, and the assumption that retrieval-count and correctness rewards can teach knowledge-boundary awareness. No new physical or architectural entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • r_kb+ = 0.6
    Maximum knowledge-boundary reward for correct answers with zero retrievals; hand-chosen and acknowledged in Section 7 as potentially requiring grid search.
  • r_kb- = 0.05
    Small reward for wrong answers with at least one retrieval; hand-chosen to encourage external search when the model is uncertain.
  • RT_max = 3
    Maximum retrieval count used in the reward normalization; hand-chosen.
  • easy/hard threshold = correct answer at least once in N samples (N not specified)
    A question is labeled Qeasy if the model answers correctly at least once across N sampled CoT responses; the threshold and N are modeling choices that define the knowledge-boundary dataset.
  • easy:hard ratio in training data = 1:1
    Training dataset mixes equal numbers of Qeasy and Qhard questions to promote balanced internal/external knowledge use.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The probing procedure (sampling CoT answers and matching gold answers) yields a reliable estimate of the model's internal knowledge boundary.
    Used in Section 3.2 to label Qeasy/Qhard for both training and test sets; if the probe is noisy, the easy/hard distinction and the reported subset results may not reflect true knowledge boundaries.
  • domain assumption A reward based only on answer correctness and retrieval count is a sufficient proxy for knowledge-boundary awareness.
    The reward in Equation 4 does not use the easy/hard labels directly; the paper assumes that minimizing retrieval when correct and rewarding retrieval when wrong teaches the model to identify its boundary.
  • domain assumption The retriever (e5-base) over the wikipedia2018 corpus can supply the external knowledge needed for all test questions.
    Used in Appendix D; if the corpus or retriever misses relevant documents, hard-subset performance would be capped by retrieval quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reinforced Internal-External Knowledge Synergistic Reasoning for Efficient Adaptive Search Agent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWLZTNUB

@misc{pith2026250507596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reinforced Internal-External Knowledge Synergistic Reasoning for Efficient Adaptive Search Agent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWLZTNUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07596}
}
read the original abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a common strategy to reduce hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs). While reinforcement learning (RL) can enable LLMs to act as search agents by activating retrieval capabilities, existing ones often underutilize their internal knowledge. This can lead to redundant retrievals, potential harmful knowledge conflicts, and increased inference latency. To address these limitations, an efficient and adaptive search agent capable of discerning optimal retrieval timing and synergistically integrating parametric (internal) and retrieved (external) knowledge is in urgent need. This paper introduces the Reinforced Internal-External Knowledge Synergistic Reasoning Agent (IKEA), which could indentify its own knowledge boundary and prioritize the utilization of internal knowledge, resorting to external search only when internal knowledge is deemed insufficient. This is achieved using a novel knowledge-boundary aware reward function and a knowledge-boundary aware training dataset. These are designed for internal-external knowledge synergy oriented RL, incentivizing the model to deliver accurate answers, minimize unnecessary retrievals, and encourage appropriate external searches when its own knowledge is lacking. Evaluations across multiple knowledge reasoning tasks demonstrate that IKEA significantly outperforms baseline methods, reduces retrieval frequency significantly, and exhibits robust generalization capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07596 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top of the figure illustrates the training process for Multi-turn Reinforcement Learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The training log of IKEA-3B-Zero, IKEA-3B, IKEA-7B-Zero and IKEA-7B. We show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The training logs of different reward design. We show the curve of number of valid searches, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The training logs of different the difficulty of training datasets. We show the curve of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AutoTIR: Autonomous Tools Integrated Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AutoTIR applies GRPO with a hand-designed action reward so a 7B instruct model learns to mix search and code tools, beating tool-using baselines on ten benchmarks.

  2. From Web Search towards Agentic Deep Research: Incentivizing Search with Reasoning Agents

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper frames agentic deep research as the successor to web search and proposes, without derivation, a test-time scaling law for reasoning and search.

  3. Toward Efficient Agents: Memory, Tool learning, and Planning

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes efficiency techniques for LLM agents into memory, tool learning, and planning, and consolidates benchmarks and metrics for measuring cost-performance trade-offs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms, 2024

    Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gallé, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, Ahmet Üstün, and Sara Hooker. Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Teaching large language models to express knowledge boundary from their own signals, 2024

    Lida Chen, Zujie Liang, Xintao Wang, Jiaqing Liang, Yanghua Xiao, Feng Wei, Jinglei Chen, Zhenghong Hao, Bing Han, and Wei Wang. Teaching large language models to express knowledge boundary from their own signals, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Pan, Wen Zhang, Huajun Chen, Fan Yang, Zenan Zhou, and Weipeng Chen

    Mingyang Chen, Tianpeng Li, Haoze Sun, Yijie Zhou, Chenzheng Zhu, Haofen Wang, Jeff Z. Pan, Wen Zhang, Huajun Chen, Fan Yang, Zenan Zhou, and Weipeng Chen. Research: Learning to reason with search for llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Understand- ing the interplay between parametric and contextual knowledge for large language models, 2024

    Sitao Cheng, Liangming Pan, Xunjian Yin, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. Understand- ing the interplay between parametric and contextual knowledge for large language models, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei Feng, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai D...

    2025

  6. [6]

    Understand what llm needs: Dual preference alignment for retrieval-augmented generation

    Guanting Dong, Yutao Zhu, Chenghao Zhang, Zechen Wang, Ji-Rong Wen, and Zhicheng Dou. Understand what llm needs: Dual preference alignment for retrieval-augmented generation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , WWW ’25, page 4206–4225, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Enhancing noise robustness of retrieval-augmented language models with adaptive adversarial training

    Feiteng Fang, Yuelin Bai, Shiwen Ni, Min Yang, Xiaojun Chen, and Ruifeng Xu. Enhancing noise robustness of retrieval-augmented language models with adaptive adversarial training. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers) , pages...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024

    2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Hao Zhou, Irene Cai, and Christopher D. Manning. Synthetic data generation & multi-step rl for reasoning & tool use, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Deeprag: Thinking to retrieval step by step for large language models, 2025

    Xinyan Guan, Jiali Zeng, Fandong Meng, Chunlei Xin, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Jie Zhou. Deeprag: Thinking to retrieval step by step for large language models, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Language models as knowledge bases: On entity representations, storage capacity, and paraphrased queries

    Benjamin Heinzerling and Kentaro Inui. Language models as knowledge bases: On entity representations, storage capacity, and paraphrased queries. In Paola Merlo, Jorg Tiedemann, and Reut Tsarfaty, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Associ...

  4. [12]

    Constructing a multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps

    Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. Constructing a multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Donia Scott, Nuria Bel, and Chengqing Zong, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Lingu...

    2020

  5. [13]

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qiang- long Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transac- tions on...

    2025

  6. [14]

    Soyeong Jeong, Jinheon Baek, Sukmin Cho, Sung Ju Hwang, and Jong C. Park. Adaptive-rag: Learning to adapt retrieval-augmented large language models through question complexity, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F. Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. Active retrieval augmented generation, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning, 2025

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Jinsung Yoon, Sercan Arik, Dong Wang, Hamed Za- mani, and Jiawei Han. Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Flashrag: A modular toolkit for efficient retrieval-augmented generation research

    Jiajie Jin, Yutao Zhu, Xinyu Yang, Chenghao Zhang, and Zhicheng Dou. Flashrag: A modular toolkit for efficient retrieval-augmented generation research. CoRR, abs/2405.13576, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cutting off the head ends the conflict: A mechanism for interpreting and mitigating knowledge conflicts in language models

    Zhuoran Jin, Pengfei Cao, Hongbang Yuan, Yubo Chen, Jiexin Xu, Huaijun Li, Xiaojian Jiang, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. Cutting off the head ends the conflict: A mechanism for interpreting and mitigating knowledge conflicts in language models. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vive...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Knowledge boundary of large language models: A survey, 2024

    Moxin Li, Yong Zhao, Yang Deng, Wenxuan Zhang, Shuaiyi Li, Wenya Xie, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. Knowledge boundary of large language models: A survey, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Remax: A simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models, 2024

    Ziniu Li, Tian Xu, Yushun Zhang, Zhihang Lin, Yang Yu, Ruoyu Sun, and Zhi-Quan Luo. Remax: A simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories

    Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Ha- jishirzi. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Proceedin...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Generation-augmented retrieval for open-domain question answering

    Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen. Generation-augmented retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli, editors,Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the ...

  16. [24]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and...

    2022

  17. [26]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023

    2023

  18. [27]

    Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. Language models as knowledge bases? In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors,Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Na...

    2019

  19. [28]

    High- dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation, 2018

    John Schulman, Philipp Moritz, Sergey Levine, Michael Jordan, and Pieter Abbeel. High- dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation, 2018

    2018

  20. [29]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms, 2017

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms, 2017

    2017

  21. [30]

    Investigating the factual knowledge boundary of large language models with retrieval augmentation, 2024

    Ruiyang Ren, Yuhao Wang, Yingqi Qu, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, Ji-Rong Wen, and Haifeng Wang. Investigating the factual knowledge boundary of large language models with retrieval augmentation, 2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y . K. Li, Y . Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models, 2024

    2024

  23. [32]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems , EuroSys ’25, page 1279–1297. ACM, M...

    2025

  24. [33]

    Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy

    Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational...

    2023

  25. [34]

    Crossing the reward bridge: Expanding rl with verifiable rewards across diverse domains, 2025

    Yi Su, Dian Yu, Linfeng Song, Juntao Li, Haitao Mi, Zhaopeng Tu, Min Zhang, and Dong Yu. Crossing the reward bridge: Expanding rl with verifiable rewards across diverse domains, 2025

    2025

  26. [35]

    Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meet...

    2023

  27. [36]

    R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

    Huatong Song, Jinhao Jiang, Yingqian Min, Jie Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Lei Fang, and Ji-Rong Wen. R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

    2025

  28. [37]

    Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533, 2022. 12

    2022 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Reinforcement learning enhanced llms: A survey, 2025

    Shuhe Wang, Shengyu Zhang, Jie Zhang, Runyi Hu, Xiaoya Li, Tianwei Zhang, Jiwei Li, Fei Wu, Guoyin Wang, and Eduard Hovy. Reinforcement learning enhanced llms: A survey, 2025

    2025

  30. [39]

    Chain- of-retrieval augmented generation, 2025

    Liang Wang, Haonan Chen, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Zhicheng Dou, and Furu Wei. Chain- of-retrieval augmented generation, 2025

    2025

  31. [40]

    Rejection improves reliability: Training LLMs to refuse unknown questions using RL from knowledge feedback

    Hongshen Xu, Zichen Zhu, Situo Zhang, Da Ma, Shuai Fan, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. Rejection improves reliability: Training LLMs to refuse unknown questions using RL from knowledge feedback. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  32. [41]

    Knowledge conflicts for LLMs: A survey

    Rongwu Xu, Zehan Qi, Zhijiang Guo, Cunxiang Wang, Hongru Wang, Yue Zhang, and Wei Xu. Knowledge conflicts for LLMs: A survey. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ...

    2024

  33. [42]

    Perception of knowledge boundary for large language models through semi- open-ended question answering

    Zhihua Wen, Zhiliang Tian, Zexin Jian, Zhen Huang, Pei Ke, Yifu Gao, Minlie Huang, and Dongsheng Li. Perception of knowledge boundary for large language models through semi- open-ended question answering. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing ...

    2024

  34. [43]

    Auto-rag: Autonomous retrieval-augmented generation for large language models, 2024

    Tian Yu, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. Auto-rag: Autonomous retrieval-augmented generation for large language models, 2024

    2024

  35. [44]

    Steering knowledge selection behaviours in LLMs via SAE-based representation engineering

    Yu Zhao, Alessio Devoto, Giwon Hong, Xiaotang Du, Aryo Pradipta Gema, Hongru Wang, Xuanli He, Kam-Fai Wong, and Pasquale Minervini. Steering knowledge selection behaviours in LLMs via SAE-based representation engineering. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang, editors, Pr...

    2025

  36. [45]

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Ellen Riloff, David Chiang, Julia Hockenmaier, and Jun’ichi Tsujii, editors, Proc...

    2018

  37. [46]

    [Yes] " is generally preferable to

    Danna Zheng, Mirella Lapata, and Jeff Z. Pan. How reliable are llms as knowledge bases? re-thinking facutality and consistency, 2024. 13 A IKEA agent template We use the system template in Table 4 to prompt the agent to interact with the environment: B Dataset Construction We ...

    2024

  38. [48]

    Knowing what llms do not know: A simple yet effective self-detection method, 2024

    Yukun Zhao, Lingyong Yan, Weiwei Sun, Guoliang Xing, Chong Meng, Shuaiqiang Wang, Zhicong Cheng, Zhaochun Ren, and Dawei Yin. Knowing what llms do not know: A simple yet effective self-detection method, 2024

    2024

  39. [50]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper

    Claims Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We clarify the contributions and the scope in abstract and the introduction. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that th...

  40. [51]

    Limitations

    Limitations Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We discuss the limitations of the work in Section 7. 16 Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means ...

  41. [52]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results

    Theory assumptions and proofs Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof? Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper does not include theoretical results. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the pa...

  42. [53]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experimental result reproducibility Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and da...

  43. [54]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code

    Open access to data and code Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide the data and cod...

  44. [55]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experimental setting/details Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide the details in Sec...

  45. [56]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiment statistical significance Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments? Answer: [No] Justification: The computation resources are too expensive for our...

  46. [57]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiments compute resources Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We show it in Section D...

  47. [58]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics

    Code of ethics Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? Answer: [Yes] Justification: This paper conforms, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics. Guideli...

  48. [59]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed

    Broader impacts Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed? Answer: [NA] Justification: We think our work will not have a significant social impact. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that there ...

  49. [60]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks

    Safeguards Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)? Answer: [NA] Justification: The paper poses...

  50. [61]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets

    Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected? Answer: [Yes] Justification: All assets used ...

  51. [62]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets

    New assets Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide the documentation in the code repo. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new...

  52. [63]

    21 Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)? A...

  53. [64]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals...

  54. [65]

    Answer: [NA] Justification: The core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important, original, or non-standard components

    Declaration of LLM usage Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the ...

    2025

  55. [2019]

    Association for Computational Linguistics

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.